Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26576840›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2016

Interviews with smokers about smokeless tobacco products, risk messages and news articles.

Olivia A Wackowski, M Jane Lewis, Cristine D Delnevo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Smokers' Exposure to Perceived Modified Risk Claims for E-Cigarettes, Snus, and Smokeless Tobacco in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  6. Harm Perceptions and Beliefs about Potential Modified Risk Tobacco Products.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Perceptions of harm and addiction of snus: An exploratory study.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Olivia A WackowskiDepartment of Health Education & Behavioral Science, Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
M Jane LewisDepartment of Health Education & Behavioral Science, Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Cristine D DelnevoDepartment of Health Education & Behavioral Science, Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers School of Public Health, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

Exploring smokers' perceptions of differing smokeless tobacco news messagesR03CA175901 · NCI · RBHS-SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2013 to 2014
$157k
NCI NIH HHS R03 CA175901
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmokeless tobacco (SLT) products and their communication have been topics of discussion in harm reduction debates, but little is known about smokers' perceptions of existing SLT risk messages. This study aimed to explore smokers' perceptions of SLT and snus products and news stories with different risk messages about them.

methodsWe conducted interviews with 30 smokers assigned to read 1 of 3 constructed news stories about SLT and snus with different messages about their risks relative to cigarettes: (1) a 'favourable' version (describing SLT/snus as a 'safer' smoking alternative); (2) a 'cautious' version (describing SLT/snus as having various risks); and (3) a 'mixed' version (both stating SLT risks and potential reduced-risk benefits).

resultsSmokers felt somewhat more informed about snus after article reading and largely found quoted sources to be credible. Though some exposed to favourable SLT/snus messages appeared to modify their beliefs about the products' acceptability and risks, many were left unchanged given pre-existing SLT risk perceptions influenced by prior SLT warnings, observed effects in known users, and concerns about SLT's mode of use. Willingness to use/not use snus in the future was also influenced by non-risk-related factors (eg, preference for smoking rituals). Many referenced e-cigarettes as being safer and more attractive smoking alternatives.

conclusionsExposure to reduced-risk SLT information may have some impact on smokers' SLT perceptions and interest, but this might be limited by a variety of negative SLT beliefs and growth of other smoking alternatives. Future research should explore SLT risk message effects with larger samples and different study designs.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsAdultAgedConsumer Health InformationFemaleHarm ReductionHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSmokersSmokingTobacco, SmokelessYoung AdultHarm ReductionMediaNon-cigarette tobacco products

Identifiers

PMID26576840
PMCPMC4870160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.